liberapediawikiaorg-20200215-history
Talk:Abortion
Arguments Against Abortion Right now, the section is poorly developed. I fixed the factual error (the Constitution grants citizenship to those born or naturalized in the US, but grants life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, due process, etc. to persons, not just citizens. However, the circular reasoning (it should be legal because it's legal) is still there. The best I could do was add an ad verecundium (it's right because the court says so). The law is in no way infallible, and our conservative counterpoints can merely point to the laws many errors in the past (slavery, etc.). Some of our liberal friends, as well, oppose the right to choose an abortion. It would be prudent to add their arguments as well. Nulono 21:17, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Thanks for improving the section on American law. If you want to argue the case against liberalism there are plenty of other websites where you can do that. I you want to argue against Liberalism here please keep to the talk pages and stay polite. Proxima Centauri 06:29, 17 May 2009 (UTC) You're right that some law are morally bad. Totalitarian regimes have any number of oppressive laws and even in democracies lawmakers are fallible. There will always be disagreement about when a cell or a clump of cells etc becomes a human being. Every time an unmarried girl or woman who practises Abstinence has a period she sheds a germ cell that could have been fertilized and was a potential huuman being. Similarly unmarried boys and men who are Abstinent shed millions upon millions of sperm cells that could have become human beings. You have to make a limit somewhere. Proxima Centauri 10:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC) :I'm not arguing against liberalism (I'm a communist myself). I'm simply cleaning up logical fallacies and factual inaccuracies. In addition, I do not see what gametes have to do with anything. Nulono 16:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I hope I've dealt with the ad homined. Proxima Centauri 11:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Lumenos questions Earthling and edits the result At first I say I'm not conservative, but I really oppose abortion. But I don't oppose gay marriage for example (as I'm homosexual myself). I post some of the reasons why I oppose abortion here, on the talk page. Consider them.... gonna take a wild guess and suggest this wandalous behavior is the work of [[User:Earthling] ] :Earthling you naughty naughty boy. Our precious talk page is ruuined! :-) But since you have gone to all this effort perhaps there is a chance you would be up for a little polite discussion. Do you study philosophy at all? Could you try to describe your moral basis in terms of a theory of normative ethics and metaethics? (Scroll down and you will see some bulleted outlines. See if one of those theories describes your moral system. I'm looking for both a normative and a metaethical theory, if you could enlighten me with those.) Lumenos 13:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC) ::I'm not going to make up some "theories" for you unless you at first consider those arguments against abortion. Earthling 14:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC) :::Make up? I was hoping for more of a definition of ethical terms such as "right", since you have used a number of these terms in your arguments. For example, I'm not sure if you were referring to a "right" that exists or one that does not. Lumenos 17:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Dear Lumenos... Earthling 17:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC) :Dear Earthling, you might notice that I've broken your posts into a few individual statements, reordered and deleted much of the information that seemed to me to be irrelevant. I'm not sure about how the administration here would feel about that, but it will be easy to repost your entire reply if I don't have this "right". (Did you catch the brilliant double meaning of "right"?) Maybe we could make room for it by removing some of the redundant and ambiguous information on your table. Lumenos 11:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC) I believe the definition of "right" is universal: "Rights are entitlements or permissions, usually of a legal or moral nature." Earthling 17:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC) :Would you say that your metaethical theory would be moral universalism? Lumenos 11:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC) But what is legal is not always right, really. Earthling 17:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC) :Is "pro-life" terrorism justified in retaliation for abortion? Lumenos 11:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC) ::How about in cases of rape? Lumenos 12:04, 31 August 2009 (UTC) I think my arguments are perfectly reasonable and work in real world. Earthling 17:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC) :For whose benefit do they work? Lumenos 02:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC) ::Well, if we say in general, that it is "bad" for people to kill each other and it is not moral to kill other human being, for whose benefit it works really?! Earthling 06:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC) :::That depends greatly, not only on what we say but what people actually do. Have you any other questions? Lumenos 08:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC) Goodbye.Earthling 06:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC) :What? Earthling, how could you leave me alone in this cruel world without the light of your moral understandings? Lumenos 08:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC) -- Earthings table of arguments {| width=100% cellspacing=10 |- | width=45% valign=top | Arguments for abortion | width=45% valign=top | Arguments against abortion |- | colspan="2" | Biological arguments |- | valign="top" | “It is uncertain when human life begins; that’s a religious question that cannot be answered by science.” | valign="top" | Medical textbooks and scientific reference works consistently agree that human life begins at conception. Encyclopedia Britannica 1998, v 26, p 611: “Although organisms are often thought of only as adults, and reproduction is considered to be the formation of a new adult resembling the adult of the previous generation, a living organism, in reality, is an organism for its entire life cycle, from fertilized egg to adult, not for just one short part of that cycle.” Encyclopedia Britannica 1998, v 26, p 664: ”'A new individual' is created when the elements of a potent sperm merge with those of a fertile ovum, or egg.” The Gale Encyclopedia of Science 1996, v 3, p 1327: ”For the first eight weeks following egg fertilization, the developing human being is called an embryo.” The Hutchinson Dictionary of Science 1994, p 340: ” – in biology, the sequence of developmental stages through which members of a given species pass. Most vertebrates have a simple life cycle consisting of fertilization of sex cells or gametes, a period of development as an embryo, a period of juvenile growth after hatching or birth, and adulthood including sexual reproduction, and finally death.” Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia 2002, v 1, p 1290: ”Embryo. The developing individual between the time of the union of the germ cells and the completion of the organs which characterize its body when it becomes a separate organism. ... At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun.” Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia 2002, v 1, p 1291: ”The period of pregnancy begins with the union of the sperm and egg. At the moment of fertilization of the egg (conception), a new life begins.” Collier’s Encyclopedia 1987, v 9, p 121: ”'The new individual is established at the time of fertilization', and embryonic development simply prepares this individual for the vicissitudes of adult life, and the development of future embryos.” Collier’s Encyclopedia 1987, v 9, p 117: ”The fused sperm and egg, called zygote, is a new individual with full capacities for development in a normal environment.” Human embryologist say: Keith L. Moore: ”This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being” (1988. Essentials of Human Embryology. p. 2. B.C. Decker Co., Toronto.) William J. Larsen: ”… gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual.” (1993. Human Embryology. p. 1. Churchill-Livingston, New York.) Bradley M. Patten: ”Fertilized ovum gives rise to new individual“. P. 43: “…. the process of fertilization …. marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.” (1968. Human Embryology, 3rd Ed. p. 13. McGraw-Hill, New York.) Quoting F.R. Lillie: P. 41: “…. in the act of fertilization …. two lives are gathered in one knot …. and are rewoven in a new individual life-history.” (1919. Problems of Fertilization. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.) Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud.: ”'Human development' is a continuous process that begins when an oocyte (ovum) from a female is fertilized by a sperm (spermatozoan) from a male.” (1993. The Developing Human, 5th Ed. p. 1. W.B. Saunders Co., Philadelphia.) Ronan R. O’Rahilly and Fabiola Müller.: ”is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a genetically is thereby formed.” (1992. Human Embryology and Teratology. p. 5. Wiley-Liss, New York.) Even wikipedia admits life of new individual human being starts at conception. Another quote from Scott Gilbert in his book Developmental Biology: ”Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a “dog” from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death. ... The life of a new individual is initiated by the fusion of genetic material from the two gametes-the sperm and the egg.” (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=dbio.chapter.176) |- | colspan="2" | |- | valign="top" | “The fetus is just a part of the pregnant woman’s body, like her tonsils or appendix. You can’t seriously believe a frozen embryo is an actual person.” | valign="top" | A body part is defined by the common genetic code it shares with the rest of its body; the unborn’s genetic code differs from his mother’s. The child may die and the mother live, or the mother may die and the child live, proving they are two separate individuals. The unborn child takes an active role in his own development, controlling the course of the pregnancy and the time of birth. Being inside something is not the same as being part of something. Human beings should not be discriminated against because of their place of residence. If we'd agreed with the statement that embryo is part of woman's body, we should also agree that at the time of pregnancy mother has to mouths, four legs, two circular system and maybe even both sex organs. |- | colspan="2" | |- | valign="top" | “The unborn is an embryo or a fetus—just a simple blob of tissue, a product of conception—not a baby. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child.” | valign="top" | Like toddler or adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development. Semantics affect perceptions, but they do not change realities; a baby is a baby no matter what we call her. Even in the earliest surgical abortions, the unborn child is clearly human in appearance. Even before the unborn is obviously human in appearance, she is what she is—a human being. No matter how much better it sounds, “terminating a pregnancy” is still terminating a life. Besides, as we all consist of different tissues, every human being is just a "blob of tissues". But at the moment of conception, these tissues belong to certain human individual and are not just some kind of abstract organic matter that some day may become a human individual. |- | colspan="2" | |- | valign="top" | "The fetus may be alive, but so are eggs and sperm. The fetus is a potential human being, not an actual one" | valign="top" | The ovum and sperm are each a product of another’s body; unlike the conceptus, neither is an independent entity. The physical remains after an abortion indicate the end not of a potential life, but of an actual life. Something nonhuman does not become human by getting older and bigger; whatever is human must be human from the beginning. |- | colspan="2" | |- | valign="top" | “The unborn isn’t a person, with meaningful life. It’s only inches in size and can’t even think; it’s less advanced than an animal and anyway, who says people have a greater right to live than animals?” | valign="top" | Personhood is properly defined by membership in the human species, not by stage of development within that species - personhood is not a matter of size, skill, or degree of intelligence. The unborn’s status should be determined on an objective basis, not on subjective or self-serving definitions of personhood. It is a scientific fact that there are thought processes at work in unborn babies. If the unborn’s value can be compared to that of an animal, there is no reason not to also compare the value of born people to animals. Even if someone believes that people are no better than animals, why would they abhor the killing of young animals, while advocating the killing of young children? It is dangerous when people in power are free to determine whether other, less powerful lives are meaningful. |- | colspan="2" | |- | valign="top" | “Obviously life beings at birth. That’s why we celebrate birthdays, not conception days, and why we don’t have funerals following miscarriages.” | valign="top" | Birthday is not the celebration of the beginning of the life of new human being – it is the celebration of birth. There is nothing about birth that makes a baby essentially different than he was before birth - it just changes the location of baby: inside or outside of the uterus. Our recognition of birthdays and tradition to held funerals is cultural, not scientific. However, some people do have funerals after a miscarriage. Funerals are an expression of our subjective attachment to those who have died, not a measurement of their true worth. |- | colspan="2" | Political arguments |- | valign="top" | “Even if the unborn are human beings, they have fewer rights than the woman. No one should be expected to donate her body as a life-support system for someone else.” | valign="top" | The right to live doesn’t increase gradationally with the stage of development. Otherwise three years old baby should have less right to live than fifteen years old adolescent, but this adolescent should have less right to live than adult person. Experiences of uncountable number of women prove that pregnant woman usually continues with her social life and career. Pregnant women don’t become some kind of unanimous and passive life-support system for someone else. And it is reasonable for society to expect an adult to live temporarily with an inconvenience if the only alternative is killing a child. |- | colspan="2" | |- | valign="top" | “Every person has the right to choose. It would be unfair to restrict a woman’s choice by prohibiting abortion.” | valign="top" | It is unreasonable to support any choice on the bases “it’s a choice”. “Freedom to choose” is too vague for meaningful discussion; we must always ask, “Freedom to choose what?”. Nearly all violations of human rights have been defended on the grounds of the right to choose. People who are prochoice about abortion are often not prochoice about other issues with less at stake. For example, we don’t let man to rape woman just because it’s the choice of that man. The one-time choice of abortion robs someone else of a lifetime of choices and prevents him from ever exercising his rights. |- | colspan="2" | |- | valign="top" | “Every woman should have control over her own body. Reproductive freedom is a basic right.” | valign="top" | Abortion assures that 650,000 females each year do not have control over their bodies. Not all things done with a person’s body are right, nor should they all be legally protected. For example, it is not allowed to sell one’s body for prostitution. Even prochoicers must acknowledge that the “right to control one’s body” argument has no validity if the unborn is a human being.Too often “the right to control my life” becomes the right to hurt and oppress others for my own advantage. It is demeaning to a woman’s body and self-esteem to regard pregnancy as an unnatural, negative, and “out of control” condition. |- | colspan="2" | |- | valign="top" | “Abortion is a decision between a woman and her doctor. It’s no one else’s business. Everyone has a constitutional right to privacy.” | valign="top" | Privacy is never an absolute right, but is always governed by other rights. The right to live is superior to right to privacy. The encouragement or assistance of a doctor does not change the nature, consequences, or morality of abortion |- | colspan="2" | |- | valign="top" | “Abortion rights are fundamental for the advancement of women. They are essential to having equal rights with men.” | valign="top" | Early feminists were prolife, not prochoice.Some active feminists still vigorously oppose abortion. Women’s rights are not inherently linked to the right to abortion. The basic premises of the abortion-rights movement are demeaning to women. Some of the abortion-rights strategies assume female incompetence and subject women to ignorance and exploitation. Abortion has become the most effective means of sexism ever devised, ridding the world of multitudes of unwanted females. The presumption that women need abortion to be equal with men, says that women are essentially lower beings than men and need a special process - abortion – to become equal with men. |- | colspan="2" | |- | valign="top" | “The circumstances of many women leave them no choice but an abortion.” | valign="top" | Saying they have no choice is not being prochoice, but proabortion. Those who are truly prochoice must present a woman with a number of possible choices instead of just selling the choice of abortion. “Abortion or misery” is a false portrayal of the options; it keeps women from pursuing—and society from providing possible alternatives, like adoption. |- | colspan="2" | |- | valign="top" | “I’m personally against abortion, but I’m still prochoice. It’s a legal alternative and we don’t have the right to keep it from anyone. Everyone’s free to believe what they want, but we shouldn’t try to impose it on others.” | valign="top" | To be prochoice about abortion is to be proabortion. The only good reason for being personally against abortion is a reason that demands we be against other people choosing to have abortions. What is legal is not always right. How can we tell people that they are perfectly free to believe abortion is the killing of children but that they are not free to act as if what they believe is really true? |- | colspan="2" | Social argument |- | valign="top" | “’Every child a wanted child.’ It’s unfair to children to bring them into a world where they’re not wanted.” | valign="top" | A new human being is already brought to this world – at the moment of conception. There is also a difference between an unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted child – many children who, at first, are not wanted by their parents are much loved afterwards. “Unwanted” describes not a condition of the child, but an attitude of adults. The problem of unwantedness is a good argument for wanting children, but a poor argument for eliminating them. |- | colspan="2" | |- | valign="top" | “Restricting abortion would be unfair to the poor and minorities, who need it most.” | valign="top" | It is not unfair for some people to have less opportunity than others to kill the innocent. The rich, not the poor and minorities, are most committed to unrestricted abortion. Planned Parenthood’s abortion advocacy was rooted in the eugenics movement and its bias against the mentally and physically handicapped and minorities. |- | colspan="2" | |- | valign="top" | “Abortion helps solve the problem of overpopulation and raises the quality of life.” | valign="top" | The current birthrate in America is less that what is needed to maintain our population level. The dramatic decline in our birthrate will have a disturbing economic effect on America. Overpopulation is frequently blamed for problems with other causes. If there is a population problem that threatens our standard of living, the solution is not to kill off part of the population. Sterilization and abortion as cures to overpopulation could eventually lead to mandatory sterilization and abortion. The “quality of life” concept is breeding a sense of human expendability that has far-reaching social implications. |- | colspan="2" | |- | valign="top" | “Even if abortion were made illegal, there would still be many abortions.” | valign="top" | That harmful acts against the innocent will take place regardless of the law is a poor argument for having no law. The law can guide and educate people to choose better alternatives. Laws concerning abortion have significantly influenced whether women choose to have abortions. |- | colspan="2" | |- | valign="top" | “The antiabortion beliefs of the minority shouldn’t be imposed on the majority.” | valign="top" | Major polls clearly indicate that the majority, not the minority, believes that there should be greater restrictions on abortion.Many people’s apparent agreement with abortion law stems from their ignorance of what the law really is. Sources: * Massive Poll Shows Majority of Americans Support Abortion Restrictions * Poll: Support for Abortion Dropping, More Americans Want it Illegal * More Americans “Pro-Life” Than “Pro-Choice” for First Time Beliefs that abortion should be restricted are embraced by a majority in each major political party. In 1973 the Supreme Court imposed a minority morality on the nation, ignoring the votes of citizens and the decisions of state legislatures. |- | colspan="2" | Medical arguments |- | valign="top" | “If abortion is made illegal, tens of thousands of women will again die from back-alley and clothes-hanger abortions.” | valign="top" | The central horror of illegal abortion remains the central horror of legal abortion - we must not legalize procedures that kill the innocent just to make the killing process less hazardous. For decades prior to its legalization, 90 percent of abortions were done by physicians in their offices, not in back alleys. It is not true that tens of thousands of women were dying from illegal abortions before abortion was legalized. The history of abortion in Poland invalidates claims that making abortion illegal would bring harm to women. Sources: * Illegal abortion as public health problem (PDF) * Confession of an ex-abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson * Worldwide Illegal Abortion Study Relies on Bogus and Biased Statistics |- | colspan="2" | |- | valign="top" | “Abortion is a safe medical procedure—safer than full-term pregnancy and childbirth.” | valign="top" | Even if abortion were safer for the mother than childbirth, it would still remain fatal for the innocent child. The increased risk of suicide after an induced abortion indicates either common risk factors for both or harmful effects of induced abortion on mental health. There were 73 suicides associated with pregnancy, representing 5.4% of all suicides in women in this age group. The mean annual suicide rate was 11.3 per 100 000. The suicide rate associated with birth was significantly lower (5.9) and the rates associated with miscarriage (18.1) and induced abortion (34.7) were significantly higher than in the population. The risk associated with birth was higher among teenagers and that associated with abortion was increased in all age groups. Women who had committed a suicide tended to come from lower social classes and were more likely to be unmarried than other women who had had a completed pregnancy. Sources: * Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study * Pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994--definition problems and benefits of record linkage. * Induced abortion operations and their early sequelae